Peppermint Pig wrote:If many people are to contribute to a farm scene, I think it would be better to go ahead with more piece usage (might as well go for quality??). If technic pins are used, there would be more opportunities for raised design exploration, such as plateauing to allow groups of mocs to sit at different heights, and insert hillsides or cliffs between them.

I do not agree about the more intensive piece usage being the best option. When covering vast tracks of baseplates, the less piece intensive solution is best. For small detailed terrain the more brick intensive approach is better. Plus another disadvantage of the technic pins is you would have to make all 4 sides of the base have technic beams. Otherwise you lose alot of flexibility in arranging the fields. A few 2x2 stone markers (grey square or round plates and bricks) at the corners of the fields would be historical and an easier solution to connect plates.

I like the plowed fields ... they're deceptively simple, it's easy to tell what it's supposed to be, and it wouldn't be hard to mound up some brown and rocks in the middle and have a serpent bursting from the ground, attacking a farmer, if you want to talk about creative ideas you can do to play around with the standard design.

I do not agree about the more intensive piece usage being the best option. When covering vast tracks of baseplates, the less piece intensive solution is best.

Understood. Neither would you want to go overboard with details on a large multi-baseplate moc or make it a priority to use up as much area as possible thus leaving you with an insufficient number of pieces to complete the job.

I agree that efficient use of pieces is important, but sometimes you can't avoid using many pieces when dealing with detailed terrain articulation. However, just as well, you can learn techniques that improve the efficiency, such as using spare pieces (yellow brick, etc) just underneath the moc 'surface', supporting where green brick or plate may be situated. If there are many people contributing to the scene, then the piece burden should be negligible as everyone ought to be putting in maximum effort according to their own capability and resources, and not trying to make a humongous plain...plain.

For small detailed terrain the more brick intensive approach is better.

Forgive me, but I thought that was the point? If this is an expo of the best works, it suggests to me that creating a large display is not necessarily an interesting goal without adding detail. To that end, large + quality will require not only creative piece usage, but frankly more piece usage.

Plus another disadvantage of the technic pins is you would have to make all 4 sides of the base have technic beams. Otherwise you lose alot of flexibility in arranging the fields. A few 2x2 stone markers (grey square or round plates and bricks) at the corners of the fields would be historical and an easier solution to connect plates.

I'll cede to your expertise on adding stone markers...

You don't necessarily lose flexibility, but you may lose the ability to match a pin, in which case larger scenes can simply add 1x4 beams 'centered' on each side to allow increased chances of jointing. Matching multiple pins is only a big concern when scenes are elevated off of the table surface and rely on neighboring scenes as anchors. If everyone did a handful of mocs and had enough beams to line the periphery where they'd expect to match with someone else's work, then there wouldn't be a problem.

I don't see it as necessary to advocate for pin joints in every situation either... if most of the designs are baseplate + 1 plate in height, then there is no need and no worry. The 8x8 standard is a good starting point to work out this system, even if we do not share sentiments on construction techniques. However, there will be times when some contributors want to do low-sinking terrain such as rivers, and it would be convenient if everybody else has the foresight to include support beams. I don't think it takes that much more in terms of resources to grab a bunch of 2x2 bricks and some plates, and raising the height for a moc, optionally inserting some technic beams to allow for snap-tight designs.

My first concern with this, or any standard, is participation by a large number of people. Moc quality, which varies by builder, is my second concern. In the past few BrickFests there have been several very nice landscapes with streams, bridges, and fields. But they were very small compared to the overall CCC layout. I would like to see a very large farmland layout surrounding the town. This would be more historically accurate.

Once the standard is put to use, fans will try all kinds of new techniques to improve it much like the CCC. Both of our ideas are compatible. The transition between baseplates with a few plates and built up technic landscapes would only need a few plates or bricks along edges. Your idea of having the technic pins centered on the 8 stud portions is a good one.

I will encourage fans to build either way, but mainly just build. Having many plots and fields at a display will be great.

Ahh! A landscaping standard! Good, I've been advocating for something like this for some time now. This actually could work with my own ideas quite well, including the thousands that have been stewing in my head for the past year not just the ones I was proposing in the above thread. One of the biggest weaknesses with my old proposal was being restricted to 32x32 baseplates, but the whole keeping things to multiples of 8...making use of smaller baseplates...this is opening up a whole new window here. I need some time to think on this, I'll get more involved in the discussion when I have.

One thing though; the most important part of all this is the actual coordinating a display once a standard has been established, and over the last year I've been working on some tools that should help immensley in this area and make the process much more streamlined and easier to handle. I keep getting distracted by other things unfortunately so I haven't mentioned it til now (though I've actually used it for demonstrations of concepts in the past). However, if I get everything else I need to done this week I'm gonna pull it out and get some work done on it. It was of course originally created for a 32x32 system, but it should actually be no trouble at all to turn it into a base 8x8. I may recruit some help if people are interested...Pig if you've got experience with tileable pixel art you'd have no prob figuring it out.

BreadMan, although I am not as confident with the bracing structures you set below the plates, I don't see why they wouldn't be compatible with other systems. My concern is stability. I really like the overview mapping idea...

Looking at your map overview image, I would say that the next step is taking advantage of the tools available to us by using Lego cad as a means to coordinate the project. First off, we could share new ideas about connectivity and support systems, including instructions on step-by-step design via ldraw files.

Layout work for any given collaborative scene could be taken care of prior to bringing it to an actual show. Not only would we be able to chart the scene in terms of land vs water area, but it would also provide an opportunity to mark, in 3D, the anticipated topographical details.

A master coordinator could either set out 'expectations' and provide a map beforehand, or have people pick 'lots', then post updates of progress so that others could begin adjoining scenes to existing ones based on their data. It would certainly help overcome the generic road phenomenon which comes from working blind.

Receive cad files as people came up with things, and then enter the relevant data into the master scene via copy and paste. Even if someone only has the ability to work with photographs, such data could be used to enter the relevant vectors for divisions in the land such as grass vs water, or tan path areas. Additionally, sharing photographs and 3D data, we would be able to better match styles across lots. I should stress, using ldraw wouldn't be about replicating a high detail copy of the real works, but to gather only the essential data required to make matching the scenes in the real world a piece of cake.

Furthermore, if you know what sort of table space is available to you at any given show, cad would also help to anticipate and plan.

Nifty little program. That would make short work of the task if everyone was working in a modular fashion. I think it has some drawbacks, such as no tile grouping/saving for larger structures/templates (might be beneficial to the program user), no infrastructure for altitude mapping (not that I would expect it, since it's meant to be a basic tiling system), and a reliance on a limited number of tiles/limited by how complex you want to make it, I imagine. I can see the benefits of this program for getting the first schematic together, but based on unique designs of contributors, we'd probably end up going back to ldraw and photographs (shooting cross-sections of castle walls, where minutiae matters, for example) for individual piece precision.

I'd have to say I am ambivalent about this one. It has very clear and very useful benefits, not just for preparing a collaborative scene, but it could be helpful to people doing lego rpg. But as a tile system, it has limits in articulating detail and may be too collective in function for some projects. It's a good program, and I would like to see a finished product, but that's really your call.

As an aside, ldraw already has several applications for multi platform support. There are Mac and Linux users out there to be considered.

Getting a little more specific on procedure and mapping activities, I think it might be better, in some cases, to just map out the highways (ensure people build a common way and not a winding path resulting from random moc placement), grass, forests, and waterways, then give people lots where they can add buildings, secondary roadways, and other natural details.

Peppermint Pig wrote:no infrastructure for altitude mapping (not that I would expect it, since it's meant to be a basic tiling system)

Quite possible actually. Observe this shot:The white markers in the upper left corner denote the cliffs should be 7 bricks high (height of a LURP) and any baseplates behind the arrows should be raised accordingly (like so). You'll be able to place the markers anywhere and denote any height.

I can see the benefits of this program for getting the first schematic together, but based on unique designs of contributors, we'd probably end up going back to ldraw and photographs (shooting cross-sections of castle walls, where minutiae matters, for example) for individual piece precision.

Ah, but this is not the point of a modular system! Perhaps it is confusing with everything being in a grid. The only thing that matters here are the edges. Allow me to explain by example.

Say someone is contributing a 32x32 baseplate and two 32x16's worth of terrain to a display. The display coordinator figures in their overall scheme that the area should have a road that runs from one side to the other with a CCC gatehouse on one side and some cliffs in the corner, like so:All the contributor needs to know is where on the edges of his baseplates the road, wall, and cliffs connect. All the coordinator need send them is this:The contributor can fill in everything inbetween however they see fit, as long as they match the edges. They do not have to adhere to 8x8 modules within their own borders, and the coordinator does not have to worry about any details because they know whatever the contributor makes will match whatever terrain is assigned to the other contributors around it. Everyone just has to keep to a defined set of "edge" standards, aka roads should be tan and 8 studs wide when they meet, CCC walls are 4 studs wide and 8 1/3 bricks tall, cliffs are 4 studs wide and 7 bricks tall, etc. Trying to coordinate a display just based off each contributors unique designs would be insanely complicated, a modular standard is meant to remove that complication.

I think it might be better, in some cases, to just map out the highways (ensure people build a common way and not a winding path resulting from random moc placement), grass, forests, and waterways, then give people lots where they can add buildings, secondary roadways, and other natural details.

Exactly. As long as the edges match, people can build whatever they want.

Last edited by BreadMan on Mon Aug 07, 2006 3:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

My argument was that there be the possibility of mapping exact details so that more orchestrated and organic works would be possible, with precise contours in the surface between various mocs, but this can instead be done with ldraw. Understandably, it is more likely the case that simpler height and layout data is all that is required, since the majority of the projects contributions would be designed using flat surfaces, with intentful cliffs and rivers built within the matrix. Therefore your program should be quite useful.

Ya know, the other day I was driving my Oregon Department of Forestry truck on the way from the fireline back to base camp and begant o think of a bunch of different ways to make farmland using the 32x32 baseplate and all the various different greens and tans of other plates for different crops. I even have a way to make cabbage.

I arrive home and the next morning log on to CC and find the farm standard on the front. Who was on that fire reading my mind?

I think it's great and hope that you will all be able to see an implementation of it soon on my upcoming castle (and surrounding lands) Castle McGlothan!